The closest thing an atheist can come to for understanding god

[C1ay]

If the Universe was infinite, and was infinitely old, why is there a background 'temperature'? It exists, that's a fact. Explain it away!

How can we explain anything about anything beyond our range or observation? Our range is limited to a finite Universe but that does not mean the Universe is finite.

 

[phlogistician]

How can we explain anything about anything beyond our range or observation? Our range is limited to a finite Universe but that does not mean the Universe is finite.

The cosmic microwave backround is NOT beyond our range of observation.

What does it imply?

 

[Cris]

phlog,

If the Universe was infinite, and was infinitely old, why is there a background 'temperature'? It exists, that's a fact. Explain it away!

If the universe is infinite then it is clearly dynamic and active, which is what we observe, so a background radiation would necessarily always be present, and would be non homogenous which actually is what we observe.

Using CBR to support BB theory doesn't exclude it from numerous infinite universe scenarios.

 

[C1ay]

The cosmic microwave backround is NOT beyond our range of observation.

What does it imply?

Nothing. Consider the possibility of Multiverses. Imagine the room you are sitting in now to represent an infinite space. Now visualize a football in the room to represent the finite Universe that we are familiar with, whose size and shape we have detected from the CMBR. The skin of that football represents the limits of our observation. Now imagine other footballs in the room representing other Universes from other Big Bangs or other causes. These would all be completely undetectable to us.

Now, we cannot state factually that these other Universes could not exist simply because we cannot detect them by observing the CMBR of our local Universe. We can never know but the possibility is real. There could be an infinity of Universes in an infinite space that we could never know about but we cannot draw a conclusion that it is impossible for them to exist.

 

[phlogistician]

phlog,

If the universe is infinite then it is clearly dynamic and active, which is what we observe, so a background radiation would necessarily always be present, and would be non homogenous which actually is what we observe.

Not the case, steady state Universes require continuous creation of matter to explain the conditions we see, and the CMB is problematic, and requires a physical structure present all over the Universe, to absorb and re-emit energy at the specific microwave wavelength we observe in the CMB. Can you tell me what that physical structure is?

Using CBR to support BB theory doesn't exclude it from numerous infinite universe scenarios.

Yes it does, rather, unless you can explain away the required physical structure for a steady state Universe to have the CMB that we observe.

 

[phlogistician]

Nothing.

No, it implies that the Universe has cooled as it has expanded, actually.

Consider the possibility of Multiverses.

A while back you asked of me;

tell us factually with supporting testable evidence what exactly does or does not exist beyond the event horizon of the Big Bang.

But your own requirement is merely a possibility?

You also said

These would all be completely undetectable to us.

and I already covered that;

If it doesn't interact with us, and we cannot detect it, we cannot say it's there, and therefore it doesn't matter (pun intended). If it does interact with us, it's part of our Universe, not a separate entity.

So please, don't dig up stuff I've already covered. Perhaps you should re-read the thread because you clearly are missing and not understand the subject adequately.

Now, we cannot state factually that these other Universes could not exist simply because we cannot detect them by observing the CMBR of our local Universe.

The CMB of our Universe shows that our Universe expanded and cooled. It makes no postulation about anything else. Again, I think you are confused. 'Other Universes' is a term you throw around, but one you haven't explained. I have made my position clear, if we can interact, or detect the effect some area of space, it is part of our Universe. If we cannot, we cannot say anything other than a theory allows for another non-overlapping set of dimenstions to exist.

We can never know but the possibility is real. There could be an infinity of Universes in an infinite space that we could never know about but we cannot draw a conclusion that it is impossible for them to exist.

I have never said that they can't. Just that our Universe is not infinite, nor is it infinitely old. I have tried to clear up what 'Universe' means, but that seems to have gone over your head.

 

[C1ay]

I have never said that they can't. Just that our Universe is not infinite, nor is it infinitely old. I have tried to clear up what 'Universe' means, but that seems to have gone over your head.

No, you said "Universe" means "all there is" and that nothing could exist outside our finite Universe. Now, if something does exist outside of our finite Universe, like infinite space, is it part of the Universe or is your definition of the Universe wrong.

BTW Admin, I nominate phlog's remarks, flames, for an infraction. Insulting the messenger is not debating the topic, it is insulting the messenger.

 

[phlogistician]

No, you said "Universe" means "all there is"

I posted the definition of the word 'Universe';

1: the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated

I then explained that if something exists which interacts with us on some level, it is detected, or observed, and therefore falls into the above definition. If something is not observed, because it's dimensions do not overlap with ours, we cannot claim it exists at all, just allowed in theory.

and that nothing could exist outside our finite Universe.

I never said that. I said that the Universe was not infinite, not infinitely old, and that to qualify as being 'outside' our Universe means by the very definition of the word 'Universe' to be undetectable, so we could not claim that anything extra-universal actually exists.

Now, if something does exist outside of our finite Universe, like infinite space, is it part of the Universe or is your definition of the Universe wrong.

It is not my definition, I gave you the definition! Simply, if something exists, it is part of our Universe.

BTW Admin, I nominate phlog's remarks, flames, for an infraction. Insulting the messenger is not debating the topic, it is insulting the messenger.

Couple of things, I haven't flamed you, just don't take being wrong so personally. I have been debating the topic, you just ignore too much and bring up subjects I've already dealt with.

Tell you what, if you don't like my definition of Universe, let's hear yours!

 

[C1ay]

I haven't flamed you, just don't take being wrong so personally. I have been debating the topic, you just ignore too much and bring up subjects I've already dealt with.

Tell you what, if you don't like my definition of Universe, let's hear yours!

Your continued implication that people are too dumb to understand what you;'re saying or that it is other their head is flaming and the provocative nature of it's design to yield an emotional response is by definition, trolling. BTW, I didn't write that definition.

 

[phlogistician]

C1ay, I'm not trying to get an emotional response from you, which is why I clearly stated;

"don't take being wrong so personally".

I haven't flamed you either, because I haven't used profanity or abusive terms.

Now, instead of dodging and calling foul play, how about you stop wasting words and give us your definition of 'Universe'?

 

[phlogistician]

And I will maintain that a beginning is impossible, since for a beginning to occur something must have initiated it, and hence that something came before a beginning, and hence the beginning wasn’t the beginning. ... There was no T=0, it isn’t possible.

Cris, I reckon you should go and buy this weeks copy of 'New Scientist', there is a very interesting article about time;

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19726391.500-is-time-an-illusion.html

 

[BlueMoose]

And The Kalevala of The Day !!!

So I heard to be said, knowing hymn to be made
Alone we have the nights to come, alone the days to arise
alone came in to being, Väinämöinen, arise from eternal singer
from thin bearer, Ilmatar The Mother.

The born of Väinämöinen from Mother God Ilmatar

 

[C1ay]

Now, instead of dodging and calling foul play, how about you stop wasting words and give us your definition of 'Universe'?

Universe • noun

1 all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.
2 a particular sphere of activity or experience.

What words are there to waste. If there is an infinite quantity of matter beyond our observational boundary, the event horizon of the Big Bang, it is part of the Universe, by definition. We cannot "conclude" from our limited observation that such matter does, or does not, exist so we cannot state factually that THE Universe is, or is not, finite or infinite, only that we don't know.

The same is true of time. Assuming time began with the Big Bang is just that, an assumption. We do not have the observational range to claim as fact that time actually did, or did not, begin with the Big Bang. We also cannot conclude that the matter of the Universe within our observational boundary did, or did not, exist prior to that event. Physics tells us that matter is neither created or destroyed. This suggests that it did not come from nothing.

We can conclude from the limits of our observation that there are limits as to what we can conclude as fact.

Before the Universe existed, before energy, before matter, there were no events. Therefore, there was no time.

Please provide PROOF that the Universe had a beginning. That time had a beginning.

Clearly not, something can come from nothing, or we wouldn't be here.

This implies that the Big Bang created matter from nothing. Can you prove that too? Can you prove that it is not possible that our Big Bang may have simply redistributed matter that already existed? Again, physics tells us that matter is neither created or destroyed. Please provide testable proof that something came from nothing. That there actually was nothing to begin with.

And where did that which came before, come from? There may have been big bangs, and big crunches before, but how did the process start, from the very beginning?

Of course there has to be a beginning. You can't just say matter and energy have been around for ever, because you aren't answering how they came to be matter and energy in the first place.

Can you prove factually that there "has to be" a beginning? That it is impossible for time to be infinite? Can you back up your claims here with testable PROOF since you are stating them as fact?

If time were infinite, as you have stated, space would be infinitely large, and the matter and energy contained within it infinitely, and equally distributed.

Could not the finite collection of matter we refer to as the Universe exist in a larger infinite space that it is expanding into? Not that it is but can you prove that it is not possible as your claim implies?

Sorry, but you really don't grasp the concepts well enough. Learn more physics!

You call this debating? It looks like a flame to me.

Just that our Universe is not infinite, nor is it infinitely old. I have tried to clear up what 'Universe' means, but that seems to have gone over your head.

More of the same. Attacking others with insults to their intelligence is yet another flame. Why don't you drop such condescending remarks and just provide proof of your claims? What exactly is the difference between "our Universe" and the Universe? What, exactly, lies beyond the event horizon and is it part of our Universe or not? What is the collection of matter that is expanding from the Big Bang, expanding into?

 

[phlogistician]

C1ay, go read the 'New Scientist' article.

C1ay, provide your definition of 'Universe'

C1ay, try and understand the ramafications of the CMB.

C1ay, try and understand the difference between 'space' and a 'void'.

Then get back to me. You really do not seem to grasp the basics.

 

[C1ay]

C1ay, go read the 'New Scientist' article.

Your claims, your burden. I'd wager you can't prove any of them.

C1ay, provide your definition of 'Universe'

Did that already. If you don't like Oxford's definition you can take it up with them. Don't get your feelings hurt if they laugh at you.

C1ay, try and understand the ramafications of the CMB.

What's to understand? The CMB indicates the size a collection of matter and space theorized to be caused by the Big Bang. It proves or disproves nothing about anything that may or may not lie beyond its boundary.

C1ay, try and understand the difference between 'space' and a 'void'.

Explain away.

You really do not seem to grasp the basics.

I've reconsidered your tactic of belittling others. I would now prefer you keep it up. The refection it provides of your character to others is worth a 1000 words.

 

[lamberthml@hughes.ne]

Yes, Existence is all and thus any god could not transcend it and would have to be immanent and contingent!
Theists and atheists both misabuse the term nothing as somethng.Ex nihilo is no useful concept.
The multiverse theories show eternal Existence. The Big Bang was not the absolute beginning of Existence. The law of conservation alludes to eternal matter-energy.
Existence by definition expands into nothng else.
So, Clay is so right!